Egyptian jihad leader calls for the destructiion of the Sphinx and Pyramids.

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

IMPORTANT: JREF Forums is now the International Skeptics Forum. If you are a past member of the JREF Forums you must agree to the new terms and conditions to post, send PMs, or continue to use the forum as a member. You can view them here, or you will be presented with them when you try to make a post or PM or similar.

Your private information was removed in transferring to the new forum. If you'd like to import it please see the instructions in this thread to approve transfer.
If you are having problems accessing the Forum you can contact Darat at isforum@internationalskeptics.com, please include your username and forum email address in any email.
NOTE:** TAPATALK access is currently disabled **. This is just while we work out how to ensure people have to agree to the T&Cs before posting here via Tapatalk

Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

But in retaliation to Gohary’s remarks, the vice president of Tunisia’s Ennahda party, Sheikh Abdel Fattah Moro, called the live program and told Gohary that famous historic military commander Amr ibn al-Aas did not destroy statues when he conquered Egypt.

“So who are you to do it?” he wondered. “The Prophet destroyed the idols because people worshiped them, but the Sphinx and the Pyramids are not worshiped.”

Gohary, 50, is well-known in Egypt for his advocacy of violence, Egypt Independent reported.

They already shot off the Sphinx's nose to make sure it wasn't an idol.

__________________As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of resolving approaches zero. -Vaarsuvius
It's a rum state of affairs when you feel like punching a jar of mayonnaise in the face. -Charlie Brooker

Personally, I think they should leave them up for the historical value.

Religion, rotting the human brain for millennia.

__________________As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

I've said before that, in many ways, much of Islam today is where Christianity was in the 1600s. This jerk wanting to destroy the pyramids and the Sphinx is in the same league with the fanatical monk who destroyed the sacred books of the Maya.

On the up side is the fact that the article reports opposition to his ideas on the part of other Muslims. On the down side is the possibility that this ***hole and a few others of his ilk might carry out such a plan. Perhaps this is another reasonable target for our drones.

I've said before that, in many ways, much of Islam today is where Christianity was in the 1600s. This jerk wanting to destroy the pyramids and the Sphinx is in the same league with the fanatical monk who destroyed the sacred books of the Maya.

Oh no need to go back that far. Destorying architecture doesn't need anything as messy as religion. New ideas about design are quite effective (bits of british innner cities post 1900) as are economics (significant chunk of britian's country houses).

Quote:

On the up side is the fact that the article reports opposition to his ideas on the part of other Muslims.

A fairly significant majority in fact.

Quote:

On the down side is the possibility that this ***hole and a few others of his ilk might carry out such a plan.

The pyramids are guarded by fairly competent millitary forces who really don't like islamic extremists. In any case the shear size of the things would make destorying them an major civil engineering projet.

There have been calls by salafists to do something about the "idols" in Egypt for a while now. Last December, news made the rounds about an al-Nour politician who wanted to destroy or "conceal" the pyramids and the sphinx (by covering them with wax...no idea how that would work), and this past July a salafist cleric in Bahrain made headlines when he called for their destruction as well.

__________________When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Err do you feel embarrassed adopting a position that is entirely inconsistent with the last 8000 years of human history? Religious institutions have long been major sources of learning if only because they are about the only people with time to consider what will happen beyond the next harvest who weren't distracted by planning the next war.

Overall, the Egyptian people seem to be too proud of these artifacts to support such a ridiculous plan. Sadly, the Taliban had much greater success destroying the 1500 year old Buddhas of Bamiyan.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Overall, the Egyptian people seem to be too proud of these artifacts to support such a ridiculous plan. Sadly, the Taliban had much greater success destroying the 1500 year old Buddhas of Bamiyan.

Even those didn't go without a fight from other Muslims - the Taliban had to besiege and massacre the Shia Hazara that were using Bamiyan as their refuge first (the Hazara were as proud of the Buddhas as most Egyptians are of the pyramids).

__________________When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Err do you feel embarrassed adopting a position that is entirely inconsistent with the last 8000 years of human history? Religious institutions have long been major sources of learning if only because they are about the only people with time to consider what will happen beyond the next harvest who weren't distracted by planning the next war.

Actually, religions have had a rather checkered relationship with learning. This is even the case with respect to the acceptance or rejection of Darwinian theory. Consider the opposite reactions to it in the United States on the part of Christians Asa Grey and Charles Hodge.

Err do you feel embarrassed adopting a position that is entirely inconsistent with the last 8000 years of human history? Religious institutions have long been major sources of learning if only because they are about the only people with time to consider what will happen beyond the next harvest who weren't distracted by planning the next war.

Religious institutions in the west have caused almost a thousand years of actively destroying almost any manuscript that wasn't a bible or part of their dogma. Ever heard of palimpsest? Yeah, they actually erased ancient science manuals, ancient plays, etc, to "redeem" the parchment by writing a frikken Bible on it.

Most of the rediscovery of ancient science and whatnot in the high middle ages was from manuscripts taken from the Arabs in the crusades. Because the western church had destroyed the local copies.

And even after that, the church constantly dictated what you can't teach. E.g., yeah, you can teach Aristotles, but not the parts where he talks about possible other worlds, because our world must be unique and important to God.

Do I feel embarrassed to say that? Nope. I'd be more embarrassed if I started rewriting history for the sake of not hurting the feelings of religious twits.

Plus, crediting the church is a bit disingenuous, when you notice that wherever the church doesn't have a monopoly, actually people did it anyway. Most of the real scientific thought of the Greeks and Romans had nothing to do with religion.

In fact, even the start of Greek philosophy, starts with... Socrates, who was tried and killed for impiety, for sticking to basically the point that he should not have to mindlessly toe the line, and he should have the right to inquire into the truth even if it makes other people uncomfortable.

Or you can also look at China for example. Religion didn't have anything to do with their progress.

So just because the church had a monopoly on what thought is allowed at various times and places, doesn't mean it should automatically get credit. Assuming that without the stupid religions we wouldn't have learning, it's like assuming that without Microsoft we wouldn't have operating systems.

It shows just another of the many differences between Islam and Christianity. Also, some people might not know that you are not allowed to paint an image of any living thing in Islam which is why their art has so many geometric designs. So it gets back to the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Since there are so many differences between Christianity and Islam, both can't be right, and at least one religion has to be wrong. Of course some will say they both could be wrong but that's another topic.

. So it gets back to the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Since there are so many differences between Christianity and Islam, both can't be right, and at least one religion has to be wrong. Of course some will say they both could be wrong but that's another topic.

What are you gonna do when allah tells you you effed up and chose wrong?

Allah? ALLAH? You think that's bad? What are you going to do when deep R'lyeh rises and our Great Cthulhu wakes up and you chose wrong? Well, granted, those who chose right won't get a free pass either, but just shows how equal-minded our Great Old One is

Religious institutions in the west have caused almost a thousand years of actively destroying almost any manuscript that wasn't a bible or part of their dogma.

Which would have had no effect whatsoever if anyone else held such documents. Documents of interest to non religious groups (mostly millitary manuals) did just fine. Have you any idea how many copies of De Re Militari there are floating around?

Err that's just recycling. Parchment was expensive so reusing it was common. You expect people to slaughter a herd of cows everytime they want to write up this years accounts?

Quote:

Most of the rediscovery of ancient science and whatnot in the high middle ages was from manuscripts taken from the Arabs in the crusades. Because the western church had destroyed the local copies.

And the reason europe had a non trivial number of people who could read latin (and a lesser extent greek) was?

Quote:

And even after that, the church constantly dictated what you can't teach. E.g., yeah, you can teach Aristotles, but not the parts where he talks about possible other worlds, because our world must be unique and important to God.

Do I feel embarrassed to say that? Nope. I'd be more embarrassed if I started rewriting history for the sake of not hurting the feelings of religious twits.

Plus, crediting the church is a bit disingenuous, when you notice that wherever the church doesn't have a monopoly, actually people did it anyway.

The european middle ages are a fairly small part of human history.

Quote:

Or you can also look at China for example. Religion didn't have anything to do with their progress.

Of course it did. That mandate of hevan doctrine was a significant in stablising the country.

Quote:

So just because the church had a monopoly on what thought is allowed at various times and places, doesn't mean it should automatically get credit. Assuming that without the stupid religions we wouldn't have learning, it's like assuming that without Microsoft we wouldn't have operating systems.

Given that the first civilisations were theocracies its pretty safe to say that without religion we wouldn't have much learning beyond flint knapping.

There have been calls by salafists to do something about the "idols" in Egypt for a while now. Last December, news made the rounds about an al-Nour politician who wanted to destroy or "conceal" the pyramids and the sphinx (by covering them with wax...no idea how that would work), and this past July a salafist cleric in Bahrain made headlines when he called for their destruction as well.

It shows just another of the many differences between Islam and Christianity. Also, some people might not know that you are not allowed to paint an image of any living thing in Islam which is why their art has so many geometric designs. So it gets back to the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Since there are so many differences between Christianity and Islam, both can't be right, and at least one religion has to be wrong. Of course some will say they both could be wrong but that's another topic.

It shows just another of the many differences between Islam and Christianity. Also, some people might not know that you are not allowed to paint an image of any living thing in Islam which is why their art has so many geometric designs.

The representation of living beings in Islamic art is not just a modern phenomenon or due to current technology, westernization or the cult of the personality. Frescos and reliefs of humans and animals adorned palaces of the Umayyad era, as on the famous Mshatta facade now in Berlin.[2][3] Figurative miniatures in books occur later in most Islamic countries, though somewhat less in Arabic-speaking areas. The human figure is central to the Persian miniature and other traditions such as the Ottoman miniature and Mughal painting, and represents a good deal of the attractiveness of Islamic art for non-Muslims.

You might first check your facts before blathering off.

Originally Posted by DOC

So it gets back to the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Since there are so many differences between Christianity and Islam, both can't be right, and at least one religion has to be wrong. Of course some will say they both could be wrong but that's another topic.

But really, you want to claim that Christianity is right, because the gospels don't contradict each other w.r.t. things as Jesus' nativity, his last words, the number of people present at his resurrection, and more such things.

It shows just another of the many differences between Islam and Christianity. Also, some people might not know that you are not allowed to paint an image of any living thing in Islam which is why their art has so many geometric designs. So it gets back to the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Since there are so many differences between Christianity and Islam, both can't be right, and at least one religion has to be wrong. Of course some will say they both could be wrong but that's another topic.

Muslims haven't even been consistent in their strictures on the depiction of Muhammad. They still aren't, in places like Iran (where, weirdly, you can buy things like postcards depicting a teenaged Prophet).

__________________When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

It shows just another of the many differences between Islam and Christianity. Also, some people might not know that you are not allowed to paint an image of any living thing in Islam which is why their art has so many geometric designs. So it gets back to the "Law of Non-Contradiction". Since there are so many differences between Christianity and Islam, both can't be right, and at least one religion has to be wrong. Of course some will say they both could be wrong but that's another topic.

Yeah, they're both wrong.

__________________Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.

Aniconism in Islam is a proscription in Islam against the creation of images of sentient living beings. The most absolute proscription is of images of Allah, followed by depictions of Muhammad, and then Islamic prophets and the relatives of the Prophet, but the depiction of all humans and animals is discouraged in the Hadith and by the long tradition of Islamic authorities, especially Sunni ones. This has led to Islamic art being dominated by Islamic geometric patterns, calligraphy and the barely representational foliage patterns of the arabesque; but figurative art still has a strong tradition, especially on a small scale in private works for the home or palace.

Err that's just recycling. Parchment was expensive so reusing it was common. You expect people to slaughter a herd of cows everytime they want to write up this years accounts?

Recycling or not, it was still actively destroying actual science documents for the sake of making bibles and other crap. As in, if that oh-so-beneficial religious gang didn't exist, MAYBE nobody would copy the old science documents, but with them existing many were actively destroyed.

Besides, if you reduce it to such a generic essence, then the inquisition was just making a fire or two. And Stalinism was just a little economic planning. And slavery is just a form of employment.

What matters is what was recycled to make what. Turning valuable stuff into crap is still just that.

Originally Posted by geni

And the reason europe had a non trivial number of people who could read latin (and a lesser extent greek) was?

As opposed to the Arabs who could study those texts just as well, without having a Latin-speaking church?

Originally Posted by geni

Of course it did. That mandate of hevan doctrine was a significant in stablising the country.

We were talking about learning, not about whatever red herring you can throw on the religion side of the scales. In fact most learning and technological advance in China was pretty secular. And a buttload of people didn't learn to read and write for being in a monastery, but because it opened the path to well paid positions in the imperial administration.

Crediting religion because there was an unrelated government doctrine based on it, is like crediting communism as a needed ingredient for the invention of space flight.

Originally Posted by geni

Given that the first civilisations were theocracies its pretty safe to say that without religion we wouldn't have much learning beyond flint knapping.

In reality, for example writing in the middle east evolved out of inventory tags, and had nothing to do with religion. It was something appropriated by religion later. If we're to credit someone with arguably THE most important invention in human learning, or maybe even the most important ever, that came from merchants, not from the idiots using gods to justify their own power.

The alphabet later, ditto, it came from Phoenician merchants, not from religion.